[extropy-chat] darfur EP

[Keith Henson]

At 12:36 AM 5/1/2006 -0400, Martin Striz wrote:
>On 4/30/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > You can blame the Pope or the memes for human reproduction to be jammed
> > full on.
> >
> > The long version is here:
> >
> > http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/17/194059/296
> >
> > The short version is that population builds up till people see a bleak
> > future, that causes xenophobic memes to build up, and there is a massive
> > population reduction from tribes fighting it out.  The traits evolved in
> > the stone age.
>
>It's an interesting essay.  While your model can account for some
>wars, it certainly doesn't account for all of them.  Power grabs and
>religious/cultural differences account for a lot of violence as well.

In the negative sense, it might.  I can't think of a population that was 
happy about the future that supported starting a war.  I am not entirely 
sure what you mean by a power grab, but religious and cultural differences 
would not be a problem if population growth had not pushed groups into 
contact/competition over limited resources.  The Nazi movement was up front 
about it, "Lebensraum."

>Moreover, it seems to account for tribal warfare much more than the
>wars have occurred in the last century.
>
>You also write:
>
>"Empowering women and other factors such as reliable birth control
>methods that go with the globalized high-tech life style has the
>effect of lowering the birth rate to near or even below replacement.
>Why isn't entirely obvious. The usual response of a species finding
>itself in a rich, well-fed environment is to have lots of offspring.
>Sarah Hrdy (Hrdy 1999) has given this topic a lot of thought without
>reaching a firm conclusion."
>
>The standard explanation involves industrialization, not globalization
>per se.  Children are an asset in agrarian societies, because they
>provide extra hands for labor, and they produce more than they cost.
>Children are a liability in industrialized societies, where they
>produce little until they are adults but cost a lot to rear.  In
>short, in industrialized socities, parents lose money on their
>children, which makes large families prohibitively expensive.

I am well aware of the standard explanation and there may be something to 
it, but the very rich in western culture (plus Japan and China now) who 
could certainly afford lots of kids rarely have them.  Also, children as 
young as 5 were extensively used as workers in early factories.

It does not seem to apply to all peoples (cultures?).  Look at the number 
of Saudi "princes."  That's support for industrialization being a factor.

The underlying EP theory is that *all* psychological traits including 
behavioral switches are the direct effect of selection or they are a side 
effect of something that was selected.  Capture-bonding would be an example 
of direct selection, drug addiction a side effect.

I can't make a case for either for low birth rates.

Really good birth control wasn't part of the EEA, but infanticide 
(particularly female infants or ones too close in age) was.

I admit to being baffled.

Long term it is incredibly important to understand if population growth in 
excess of economic growth underlies the conditions leading to wars.

Keith Henson